Jose Frausto Villegas and Jose Manuel Barragan Aguilar, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DLP Management Co., Inc. et al.

Case Number

21CV04500

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 02/26/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiffs Jose Angel Frausto Villegas and Jose Manuel Barragan Aguilar: David Glenn Spivak, Louis M. Benowitz

                            

For Defendants DLP Management Co., Inc. and Dario L. Pini: Paul R. Burns

                                               

RULING:

The motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted. The court will sign the proposed order. Counsel for plaintiffs shall appear at the hearing to discuss dates and times to include in paragraph 11 of the proposed order.

Background

Plaintiff Jose Frausto Villegas (“Villegas”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed his complaint against defendant DLP Management Co., Inc. (“DLP”) on November 12, 2021. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Failure to pay all wages earned for all hours worked, (2) failure to provide rest periods, (3) failure to provide meal periods, (4) failure to reimburse for expenses, (5) waiting time penalties, and (6) unfair competition. The complaint alleges that Villegas was a maintenance worker for DLP from approximately 2009 to January 2020.

DLP filed its answer to the complaint on April 14, 2022, asserting a general denial and 16 affirmative defenses.

Plaintiff Jose Manuel Barragan (“Barragan”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a substantially similar complaint, alleging the identical causes of action, on April 11, 2022. The Barragan complaint named Dario L. Pini (“Pini”) as a defendant as well as DLP (collectively “defendants”). The complaint alleges that Barragan was a maintenance worker for DLP and Pini from approximately 2008 to April 13, 2019.

On June 8, 2022, the Barragan action was consolidated with the Villegas action, with the Villegas action being designated the lead case.

Pini filed his answer to the Barragan complaint on December 7, 2022, asserting a general denial and 16 affirmative defenses.

Following extensive settlement negotiations and mediation with Henry J. Bongiovi on September 26, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement of the action, and sought preliminary court approval of that settlement, an order provisionally certifying the proposed class for settlement purposes, an order appointing plaintiffs as class representatives for the class, an order appointing plaintiffs’ attorneys as class counsel for the class, an order appointing ILYM Group, Inc. as the third-party settlement claims administrator, an order approving the Notice being sent to the class, and an order scheduling the hearing for final approval of the settlement, including approval of an incentive award to the representative plaintiff, settlement administration costs, and fees and costs to class counsel.

The motion for preliminary approval was granted on October 2, 2024, and the hearing for final approval was scheduled for February 26, 2025.

Plaintiffs timely filed the documents ordered to be filed in support of the motion for final approval, including plaintiffs’ declarations, the declarations of plaintiffs’ counsel David Spivack and Louis M. Benowitz, and the declaration of Nicole Bench of ILYM Group, Inc.

Analysis

“A settlement or compromise of an entire class action, or of a cause of action in a class action, or as to a party, requires the approval of the court after hearing.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(a).) “Any party to a settlement agreement may serve and file a written notice of motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement agreement and proposed notice to class members must be filed with the motion, and the proposed order must be lodged with the motion.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(c).)

As noted above, the court granted preliminary approval of the class action on October 2, 2024.

“Before final approval, the court must conduct an inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.769(g).)

“At the final approval hearing, ‘the court must conduct an inquiry into the fairness of the proposed settlement.’ [Citation.]” (Luckey v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 81, 93.) “Because a court evaluating certification of a class action that settled prior to certification is considering certification only in the context of settlement, the court’s evaluation of the certification issues is somewhat different from its consideration of certification issues when the class action has not yet settled. In some ways, the court’s review of certification of a settlement-only class is lessened; as no trial is anticipated in a settlement-only class case, ‘the case management issues inherent in the ascertainable class determination need not be confronted.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 93-94.) “However, other certification issues, ‘those designed to protect absentees by blocking unwarranted or overbroad class definitions’ require heightened scrutiny in the settlement-only class context ‘for a court asked to certify a settlement class will lack the opportunity, present when a case is litigated, to adjust the class, informed by the proceedings as they unfold.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 94.)

The Spivak declaration establishes that, as defined, the there is a numerous, ascertainable class. Plaintiffs have presented evidence that there is a well-defined community of interest. The class representatives appear to have claims typical of the class and appear to be able to adequately represent the class.  Plaintiffs’ counsel has extensively investigated the claims, including formal and informal discovery, production of documents, review of detailed information and payroll data relevant to plaintiffs’ claims, and the analysis by the parties of the class-wide data to investigate the merits of plaintiffs’ claims and the potential liability. In addition, there has been review of payroll records, time-keeping records, and other records produced by defendants to plaintiffs’ counsel for purposes of litigation and mediation, and discussions between counsel regarding strengths and weaknesses of claims and defenses.

“The burden is on the proponent of the settlement to show that it is fair and reasonable. However, ‘a presumption of fairness exists where: (1) the settlement is reached through arm’s-length bargaining; (2) investigation and discovery are sufficient to allow counsel and the court to act intelligently; (3) counsel is experienced in similar litigation; and (4) the percentage of objectors is small.’ [Citation.]” (Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 245, disapproved on other grounds in Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 260, 269, 274, fn. 4.)

Plaintiffs present evidence that the settlement occurred following reasonable investigation and discovery by experienced counsel through arm’s length bargaining. Plaintiffs separately present evidence that the terms of the settlement are reasonable given the risks of litigation and the potential or likely outcomes at trial. It appears to the court on the evidence now presented that the settlement is fair and reasonable.

Under the terms of the settlement, defendants have agreed to pay $750,000.00, on a non-reversionary basis, to settle and release all claims asserted by plaintiffs in the class action on behalf of the class. The settlement identifies the class members as “either a Participating Class Member or Non-Participating Class Member.” The settlement class period is “the period from November 12, 2017, to October 21, 2024.” The “Net Settlement Amount” available for distribution to the class is the Gross Settlement Amount, less the Attorneys’ Fees and Costs of $250,000.00 in fees and $14,209.59 in costs, the Class Representative Incentive Awards of $15,000.00 to each plaintiff, and Settlement Administration Fees of $5,750.00.

The “Individual Settlement Payment”, i.e., each class member’s share of the net settlement amount, will be calculated and apportioned from the Net Settlement Amount based upon the number of workweeks the member worked during the class period as a non-exempt employee in California. 33.33 percent of each participating class member’s individual settlement share will be allocated to settlement of wage claims and are subject to tax withholding and will be reported on an IRS W-2 form. Participating class members assume full responsibility and liability for any employee taxes owed on their individual class payment.

Pursuant to the order granting preliminary approval, ILYM Group, Inc. received a data file from defense counsel that contained “the name, social security number, last known mailing address, last known telephone number, the dates worked during Class Period, and the number of Class Period Paychecks for each Class Member. The data file was uploaded to our database and checked for duplicates and other possible discrepancies. The Class Members’ data contained information for 82 individuals.” (Bench Dec., ¶ 5.) Notice packets were mailed, in both English and Spanish, to all 82 individuals contained in the Class Data. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Eight notice packets were returned to ILYM, none of which were returned with a forwarding address. (Id. at ¶ 9.) ILYM performed a skip trace on the eight returned notice packets and received two updated addresses, to which packets were promptly re-mailed. (Ibid.) ILYM received no requests for exclusion or written objections. (Id. at ¶¶ 12, 13.)

The court determines that the settlement is entitled to final approval, and plaintiffs’ motion will be granted.